hey genius, the original problem was that a politician took federal money to spend in his own state... the same state where the voters who put him in office will benefit from the money.... and you plan for these people to electively vote him out? you don't see the conflict of interest? your "process" will NEVER do ANYTHING to change ANYTHING.
so you are saying logical fact is irrelevant because it isn't practical, yet you claim your practical solution is relevant even though it's logically false as the problem remains. the problem with corruption isn't in the individuals serving in office... it's in the corporate/political party alliances... there is no term limits on ideological platforms based on stopping people from doing things.
would you say that concluding that "the assumption of crime alone justifys it" is logical?
the cons, such as false positives, cost of maintenance, invasion of privacy, seem rather large to balance out the pros of solving cases that could be solved in no other way. how many of those cases exist? how many detectives, who currently use other means to solve crimes, will lose their jobs?
i don't believe there is ever a way... the question isn't why did the guy that killed and mutilated me have to have his blood profile indexed... it's why did *I* have to get *MY* blood profile indexed. the only conclusion is that society believed there was a chance that *I* might one day kill and mutilate someone else.
innocent until proven guilty goes away when "charged" and "proven" guilty are both products of the same database.
my solution isn't useless... it COMPELTELY solves the problem. if you don't have enough resources to implement the solution then don't complain about your lack of ability....
very odd to ask why you are flamebait AFTER i point out that someone else thought you were, and also why i thought you were... WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? you are being hypocritical, uninformed, and projecting a sense of demand. that combination serves to bait those who would complain about how flawed your argument is based on the fact that it is self contradicting.
the only way your solution is real is that it really is useless... you said so yourself... you're not getting rid of corruption... you're just pruning it on a schedule allowing it to dig it's roots deeper and deeper. the solution is figurative weed killer. cut off the problems source of nourishment.
it's about politics. it's about fighting the slippery slope of unemployment. it's about progress.
perhaps in your next opinion piece you should try avoiding using the word "believe" and "bet" and make up some facts instead.
it also doesn't help to prove yourself wrong by painting the picture of a world where joe lieberman is alive (the actual real world) and then suggest that it is impossible to even imagine that this world exists.
so simple that it took you 10 responses to figure it out? either you are wrong or slow... judging by you earlier being wrong, i would first assume are you wrong this time as well... of course you were moderated "flamebait" implying someone thought your motives were in question from the start. i agreed and provided you with a short term solution. you deny the solution, provide an alternate less effective solution that you acknowledge will not remove the problem, yet you continue to argue about the existence of the problem. that is why your comments are flamebait...
Ok, so if your voting process is corrupt to the point that your voting machines record non-existing votes and skip real ones, you have different issues.
... DING DING DING. didn't read past that. congratulations on realizing your lapse of logic. it looks like you spent some time sorting out that new realization and perhaps trying to justify it.
i brought it up because you suggested voting solves all corruption problems. my point was that that doesn't work IF the voting process is also corrupt. i "continue with that theme" because you continue with the theme of your fairy tale land where that would never exist. you don't know why because you are oblivious.
SECOND, there is a way to stop pork spending as i pointed out.... UNDERBID THE CONTRACT AND DO THE WORK FOR FREE.
of course these are extremes, but so are your sensationalist claims. if pork spending and corruption can be stopped in a very short time as you suggest, then why hasn't it been stopped?
so you are defining sides to the political system by labeling one side (R) and one side (D), but not acknowledging that there might also be sides to the methods those sides use to leverage the system?
let's say a corporation who you are claiming is already willing to use it's assets to gain control of government, also has the ability to control the voting machines... you think that throughout history a corporation in that position has never exploited that ability? you think one never will?
once the pork contract is defined, underbidding the contractor who the pork was seemingly prepared for, or offering your services for free, is the ONLY short term thing you can do to decrease the affect of the corruption. you can vote for 1000 years and change nothing. you are delusional.
but obviously over time money became the deciding factor for winning almost any vote, that's the failure.
are you sure it's never the rigged/hackable/unverifiable voting machines? or are you implying they only exist because money became available to mandate them?
if you know someone is going to get shot, is it moral to jump in front of the bullet? what about if it's just a punch?
i was talking about minimizing the money taken after corruption has already decided it wants a specific task accomplished that someone will certainly be paid money that doesn't need to be spent to give them.
i suppose you believe the moral thing to do in that case is overthrow the government?
What? Since when do peoples actions magically get absolved the moment they change jobs? By your logic, if Hitler had merely changed jobs instead of committing suicide, then voila, it would no longer be reasonable to "demonize" him.
just so you understand "my logic", (and perhaps logic in general..), consider this: if the nazis were never stopped, continuing today with their genocide under a new dictator, would it make more sense to attack the currently operating organization using individuals or symbols currently in use by the organization, or to attack an individual no longer serving in a leadership role?
There must then be a more fundamental clock that regulates the rate of change.
must? what if the change itself was regulating our perception of time?
the article might as well be entitled "what is god?"... all speculation that 50% of people will disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
you are the worst kind of stupid.
so you are saying logical fact is irrelevant because it isn't practical, yet you claim your practical solution is relevant even though it's logically false as the problem remains. the problem with corruption isn't in the individuals serving in office... it's in the corporate/political party alliances... there is no term limits on ideological platforms based on stopping people from doing things.
the cons, such as false positives, cost of maintenance, invasion of privacy, seem rather large to balance out the pros of solving cases that could be solved in no other way. how many of those cases exist? how many detectives, who currently use other means to solve crimes, will lose their jobs?
innocent until proven guilty goes away when "charged" and "proven" guilty are both products of the same database.
and how do you explain that to a child without having them conclude that society expects them to one day commit crimes?
very odd to ask why you are flamebait AFTER i point out that someone else thought you were, and also why i thought you were... WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? you are being hypocritical, uninformed, and projecting a sense of demand. that combination serves to bait those who would complain about how flawed your argument is based on the fact that it is self contradicting.
the only way your solution is real is that it really is useless... you said so yourself... you're not getting rid of corruption... you're just pruning it on a schedule allowing it to dig it's roots deeper and deeper. the solution is figurative weed killer. cut off the problems source of nourishment.
what do you do for a living?
It's about the money.
it's about politics. it's about fighting the slippery slope of unemployment. it's about progress.
perhaps in your next opinion piece you should try avoiding using the word "believe" and "bet" and make up some facts instead.
it also doesn't help to prove yourself wrong by painting the picture of a world where joe lieberman is alive (the actual real world) and then suggest that it is impossible to even imagine that this world exists.
you are the worst kind of stupid.
so simple that it took you 10 responses to figure it out? either you are wrong or slow... judging by you earlier being wrong, i would first assume are you wrong this time as well... of course you were moderated "flamebait" implying someone thought your motives were in question from the start. i agreed and provided you with a short term solution. you deny the solution, provide an alternate less effective solution that you acknowledge will not remove the problem, yet you continue to argue about the existence of the problem. that is why your comments are flamebait...
only the awesomest 13 year olds
you are ATTEMPTING to justify it... i agree that you are failing.
i'm sorry, did you say "about" or "to boot"?
my real point was either way you couldn't prove yourself, so this book is fluff philosophy at best.
i misspelled "a" as "i" above, fulfilling my wunce pir sentans quota.
Ok, so if your voting process is corrupt to the point that your voting machines record non-existing votes and skip real ones, you have different issues.
... DING DING DING. didn't read past that. congratulations on realizing your lapse of logic. it looks like you spent some time sorting out that new realization and perhaps trying to justify it.
the first two times i didn't care, but the third, and all the high and mighty caps forced me to step in and point out how silly you look.
why do you spell so bad?!#%*&!#^
who said you were libertarian?
i brought it up because you suggested voting solves all corruption problems. my point was that that doesn't work IF the voting process is also corrupt. i "continue with that theme" because you continue with the theme of your fairy tale land where that would never exist. you don't know why because you are oblivious. SECOND, there is a way to stop pork spending as i pointed out.... UNDERBID THE CONTRACT AND DO THE WORK FOR FREE. of course these are extremes, but so are your sensationalist claims. if pork spending and corruption can be stopped in a very short time as you suggest, then why hasn't it been stopped?
let's say a corporation who you are claiming is already willing to use it's assets to gain control of government, also has the ability to control the voting machines... you think that throughout history a corporation in that position has never exploited that ability? you think one never will?
once the pork contract is defined, underbidding the contractor who the pork was seemingly prepared for, or offering your services for free, is the ONLY short term thing you can do to decrease the affect of the corruption. you can vote for 1000 years and change nothing. you are delusional.
but obviously over time money became the deciding factor for winning almost any vote, that's the failure.
are you sure it's never the rigged/hackable/unverifiable voting machines? or are you implying they only exist because money became available to mandate them?
UNDERbid. ZERO is under ANY bid. do it for free. is that moral? do they do things for free to help the common good in your country?
what if the voting system itself is just as failed as the institution that implemented it?
lucky for us US citizens that you are safely on some other soil.
i was talking about minimizing the money taken after corruption has already decided it wants a specific task accomplished that someone will certainly be paid money that doesn't need to be spent to give them.
i suppose you believe the moral thing to do in that case is overthrow the government?
so underbid on the contract...
but, if there was NO change, would time still exist? not perceptibly. change creates time. chickens create eggs. eggs create chickens.
What? Since when do peoples actions magically get absolved the moment they change jobs? By your logic, if Hitler had merely changed jobs instead of committing suicide, then voila, it would no longer be reasonable to "demonize" him.
just so you understand "my logic", (and perhaps logic in general..), consider this: if the nazis were never stopped, continuing today with their genocide under a new dictator, would it make more sense to attack the currently operating organization using individuals or symbols currently in use by the organization, or to attack an individual no longer serving in a leadership role?
not that i'm comparing the nazis to microsoft...
There must then be a more fundamental clock that regulates the rate of change.
must? what if the change itself was regulating our perception of time? the article might as well be entitled "what is god?"... all speculation that 50% of people will disagree with.